dcaufandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:The Main Man
Added a minor tidbit of trivia regarding how Toon Disney editted out most of Lobo's phony cursing. - Zadok Rox 19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC) That Ageless Dodo Thailog, for the past few days we've been reverting back and forth over whether or not to include a line referring to the apparent agelessness of the Dodo on the Preservers' ship; I figure we should discuss it here from now on, as I know from personal experience that edit wars never end well, for either party, and largely just detract from the article itself. The problem with the single sentence, and the reason I keep removing it, is that it is baseless conjecture; it's certainly possible that the Preserver has granted his animals an ageless immortality, and I will even grant that that makes perfect sense (Since otherwise there'd be no real purpose to picking up the last living members of species, since in a few years, no matter how long their lifespan, they'll die anyway), but nothing in the dialogue suggests as much. There are countless other explanations that likewise could explain a living Dodo (Clones, suspended animation, artificial insemination, and so on) and, unless we want to list every single conjectural theory, we can't put one one the page just because we think it makes sense. Thoughts? JBK405 20:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) :I agree, that's why I reworded it and moved it to the PI section. What do you think of that? ― Thailog 20:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Well, it's certainly no longer conjecture, but I still wonder if it's necessary at all, do we really need to point out that we don't know something? Also, it's not really a production inconsistency, since we're never given much information at all, let alone something wrong or contradictory to other information; the bird might very well have been given a prolong treatment, or something else, that would perfectly explain its current living status. In these situations, where we're riding the edge of personal opinion and conjecture, i feel it's better to give too little information rather than too much. JBK405 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC) :Well, I'm sort of playing the Devil's Advocate here because I was not the one who originally added that info and I don't particularly feel strong about it, but I think that the point here is that unlike the other alien specimens that may be immortal for all we know, we know that the dodo is an earthly creature, and therefore mortal. This is why I believe it should be noted — we were given information about it by being told it was a dodo, which raises the question, "How did it live so long in the Preserver's captivity" or more like "Why is that not explained." It seems like a plot hole. ― Thailog 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) True enough, but like I said, here we're sorely lacking in any sort of info, one way or another. If, for example, the Preserver made an explicit statement that Dodo's only have a lifespan of XXX years, or specifically stated that this was the Dodo which the Preserver picked up four hundred years ago, we could legitimately point out "In that case, this one would be long dead." Since we were left largely in the dark we don't know if anything technological happened to explain this (like all those things which we went over before), or if it really is a plothole (In which case I'd say it's just sloppy writing). Rather than speculate, I think we should simply state what happened and leave it up to the reader to make their own conclusions. This way, we state the Dodo went extinct in the 1600's, and that the Preserver has one, but don't jump to any conclusions as to how it happened, or why (Either in the universe, or in the production stage). JBK405 23:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) :Agreed. ― Thailog 23:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)